After all the explanations for their new naming convention when Track changed to the 505C, 715A etc about core strength, cover and ball motion, where is the essay on the new names? Is there some reason for the new names? Or is it like a Lexus or Infiniti and the name is just something that sounded cool in marketing?

Hell's Bells! The old one made ZERO sense. The new one makes less sense.

They had 3 series with the strength of 5 series, 5 series with the strength of 7 series, 7 series with the strength of both 9 and 5 series. They not only did not keep to their own naming conventions, they also brought in 4,6 and 8 series, "Special Editions", that were hardly special at all. Then there's was the A for angular, C for either control or continuous, (2 VERY different things) and T for traction. Then they mixed and matched these suffixes, which HAD BEEN one of the important and useful keys in the name.

Ah, then they had the Intermediate differential thrown into the name even when it was insignificant ( < .008") and when you could do 459 different things with a core that had a significant differential (> .008"). That, to my mind has little to do with the strength of the ball.

I think they grasped for straws and got a handle full of water. And, of all the things to keep, the intermedaite differential as part of the name makes no sense. Heck, 95% of bowlers barely know that PSA exists, no less what it means.

This drives me absolutely bonkers since Track obviously is AND HAS BEEN making a ton of great balls that provide a complete arsenal for virtually every type of bowler and condition that I can imagine. Balls are not made or designed for crankers, tweeners and strokers. They're made for oil amounts with cores that are flexible and have the potential (IMPORTANT WORD: "POTENTIAL"!!!!!) to allow the ball to be drilled for many styles and many reactions, especially asymmetric cores.

Sorry, Track, but you have a GREAT ball designer; you need a good PR man, quickly!!

The problem I see with naming it after bowling conditions (heavy, medium, light) is that there's too much subjectivity in how much oil is on the lane, whereas it's MUCH easier to just find out your rev rate. That being said, I'm not sure this new naming convention makes any more sense than the old one. I think the old one made sense on paper, but in reality the results were all over the map. I love my Track bowling balls but I've learned that the numbering system wasn't what it purported itself to be.

Hell's Bells! The old one made ZERO sense. The new one makes less sense.

They had 3 series with the strength of 5 series, 5 series with the strength of 7 series, 7 series with the strength of both 9 and 5 series. They not only did not keep to their own naming conventions, they also brought in 4,6 and 8 series, "Special Editions", that were hardly special at all. Then there's was the A for angular, C for either control or continuous, (2 VERY different things) and T for traction. Then they mixed and matched these suffixes, which HAD BEEN one of the important and useful keys in the name.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that feels this way. When the new system started, I thought it was a great concept. As time went by, it just didn't work. An 8 series ball for drier lanes? A 3 series with all of the versatility of a benchmark? I think they forgot what they were trying to do. Now this seems to be based on one's rev rate.
For the longest time I have felt naming balls was kinda goofy. Now goofy names seem like a good idea compared to this.

i liked the old 300,500,700,900 series stuff and mix in the Special Editions too...

I think it made it easier for people to go ok, i know i need a mid ball so i'll get this one or that one.. or i need a lowend ball..

Now yes you still end up with low end balls that are Strong lol and high end balls that are not.. 

like my 300T is so versatile its unreal..  yet my 919c is what i call a house shot ball..

I had a 503c that was so strong, i could hardly ever use it..  my 811c/t is flipping awesome!!  same goes with my 400a, 505a's and several others.. 

I mean you are always going to have your good balls, Great ones and the ones that are like WTF??   

as for the new balls, i think if people understand what the L,M, and H stand for and what the balls are made for, its easy..  Obviously I would use the Lx16 for heavy oil and the Hx05 for dry lanes...   

I don't really dig tracks new naming system...I don't really like roto grips either...

I think both are confusing to the average joe...

It seems like Track is making balls and leaving it up to the Pro shop operator to assert his position as the expert and explain to the customer what the name means and why it would be a good fit for them.  I think it's a good strategy to get more people back into the pro shops and to trust their driller.

The problem I see with naming it after bowling conditions (heavy, medium, light) is that there's too much subjectivity in how much oil is on the lane, whereas it's MUCH easier to just find out your rev rate. That being said, I'm not sure this new naming convention makes any more sense than the old one. I think the old one made sense on paper, but in reality the results were all over the map. I love my Track bowling balls but I've learned that the numbering system wasn't what it purported itself to be.

I thought the L, M, H were for Rev Rate, not condition?!? L was for Low Rev players, M for Medium Rev players and H for High Rev players. Was this incorrect?